Rick: I get grossed out at the thought of seeing a dude kiss another dude (or for that matter hold hands). Sexuality is a choice and not genetic (thoroughly proven). I do believe all people should have equal human rights. Do what you want behind closed doors but dont force me to look at 2 homos kissing. No marriage.

[Oh, okay. Homos kissing makes you sick, so we should be allowed to deny them basic rights. Gotcha. E-mailed him back.]

To: Rick
From: Ivy
Subject: Gay Marriage Rant Feedback Response

I get grossed out at the thought of seeing a dude kiss another dude (or for that matter hold hands).

I get grossed out when I have to hear the sounds of kissing, between anyone. I also get grossed out when I have to look at or listen to someone eating with their mouth open, or if I happen to be walking outside and catch a glimpse of a dog taking a shit, or some roadkill on the ground. I'm afraid that in this world, you cannot expect your sensibilities to be protected through laws. You just have to look the other way and/or get over it.

Sexuality is a choice and not genetic (thoroughly proven). I do believe all people should have equal human rights.

If this is "thoroughly proven," then why are there arguments about it? Evolution is thoroughly proven too and there are people still saying it doesn't happen, claiming either insufficient evidence (e.g., "you can't convict a man of murder unless you have the whole thing from beginning to end on tape!!") or claiming the evidence is put there by Satan. Point is, no one argues that the sun is going to come up tomorrow because everyone knows it will. We don't have arguments about things unless there are some people who don't believe it.

There is an argument about this because there IS plenty of question and plenty of evidence on both sides for genetics and environment to have contributing roles in determining sexuality.

On the one hand, you have some sets of identical twins in which one is homosexual and one is not. That is a vote for "choice," some would say, though of course there is the fact that studying a large sample of identical twins turns up the evidence that rates of homosexuality in both twins is much higher than rates of homosexuality in two fraternal twins or close-age siblings.

And then on the other hand you have people who are sexually attracted to the same sex and don't *want* to be, which causes them lots of grief--a vote for "genetics."

I believe that there are many factors affecting our ultimate choices of sexual behavior, and that it isn't always one or the other in each person. Not to mention that there is homosexual behavior elsewhere in the animal kingdom, not just humans. (Maybe you didn't know that?) It's kind of sad to see you just say "thoroughly proven" as if there is some consensus the rest of us are just ignoring, but you fail to cite any of said proof and on top of that you don't even acknowledge in your statement that there is another side, as if any thinking person would obviously agree with you.

Do what you want behind closed doors but dont force me to look at 2 homos kissing. No marriage.

If that is how you feel, then don't have gay friends and don't go to any gay weddings. I think your attitude is pretty sad, but I don't believe there's any reason to try to force you to view their romantic interactions. I certainly don't see what it has to do with marriage or their rights to pursue their happiness. But I must wind this up by saying if you think "*I* don't want to watch *gays* kiss, eewww!" is a good argument against gay marriage, you have a long way to go in rustling up decent counterarguments. . . .

~*ivY

To: Ivy
From: Rick

I'm afraid that in this world, you cannot expect your sensibilities to be protected through laws.

History proves you wrong. Through all recorded civilization there have been laws to protect the common moral objective. This is why you are not allowed to stroll nude into a shopping market..my right NOT to see someone else nude in public is protected by law.

"If this is "thoroughly proven," then why are there arguments about it? Evolution is thoroughly proven too"

Do you really want to take that stance? Evolution has never been thoroughly proven hence the term "evolutionary theory"

Theory is defined as: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

As far as evolution goes I would suggest you read about how the theory was started. If you think Darwin came up with the theory then you have a lot of reading to do. There has never been 1 instance of evolution; one "kind" evolving into another completely different "kind". No evidence what- so- ever! If you know of an instance please educate me.

Per your statement on homosexual twins...you seem ignore the fact that scientist have proven that there is no seeable connection between the choice to become a homosexual, considering genetics or family environment. Today the most prevalent argument is being a homosexual is purely choice. You state facts from inconclusive studies. If you know of a study that proves no choice; again educate me. My reading in books, internet and lol Psychology 102 has lead to the inescapable conclusion...CHOICE.

I really don't want to go on and on about the homosexual issue, I gave you my opinion and you gave me yours. I respect you and hope not to have offended you in any way. I love all men homosexual and straight, even if I disagree with how they behave in this world. If you want to retort to my comments above feel free.

To: Rick
From: Ivy

I said this:

I'm afraid that in this world, you cannot expect your sensibilities to be protected through laws.

You said this:

History proves you wrong. Through all recorded civilization there have been laws to protect the common moral objective. This is why you are not allowed to stroll nude into a shopping market..my right NOT to see someone else nude in public is protected by law.

So I guess this means we're looking at two different versions of human history? I honestly believe that if humans lived a few hundred years instead, they might have a better perspective of time. . . . Some of you can be so short-sighted.

History does NOT prove me wrong. I'd like to introduce you to something called the changing moral Zeitgeist (literally "time-spirit," a.k.a. spirit of the times, in German). So far, no, it is not appropriate to run around nude. However, look at your grandparents and you see entirely different swimwear because of what was "decent," and I'm certain that what passes for swimwear now would have resulted in indecent exposure charges at that time. The objective "rightness" or "wrongness" is not inherent in the nudity itself. It is reflected in society's attitudes. Look at Victorian times and we women weren't allowed to show leg.

Look at my parents' generation: Any adult was allowed to discipline any kid with corporal punishment and the kid's parents would probably thank the unrelated adult. Today: CHILD ABUSE!!!

What is appropriate *changes* with the times, and that is partly because people do keep challenging the system. If laws stayed the same throughout time, then we would not need amendments, and we'd still be allowed to have slaves. (For that matter, if morals were eternal and unchanging, I could stone you to death for working on the Sabbath if I wanted to--no, I'd be compelled by doctrine to do so!)

My point in supporting gay marriage in this instance is to challenge some people's perception that gay marriage is NOT right, and maybe someday with enough people pointing out that it should be allowed, it will just become the consensus that it is all right, just like today it is generally the consensus that people of two different races can get married. (Try that a hundred years ago! "Ugh, why would a white guy marry a black chick? It makes me SICK to see them hold hands! I won't even use the same bathroom or water fountain as a black person; how can some white people even conceive of wanting to MARRY one?!")

Regarding your supposed "thorough proof" of homosexuality being a choice, I said this:

If this is "thoroughly proven," then why are there arguments about it? Evolution is thoroughly proven too

You said this:

Do you really want to take that stance? Evolution has never been thoroughly proven hence the term "evolutionary theory"

You are using the often-used and VERY VERY WEAK excuse that "it's just a theory," without understanding what "theory" means in the scientific sense.

I get really annoyed when people make themselves sound very uneducated by invoking this, as you have just done. Your choice to equate "theory" with "educated guess" without understanding what "theory" means in a scientific context shows exactly how UNinformed you are about the theory itself.

Allow me to explain. "Theory" is used in the scientific sense, because "evolutionary theory" is a scientific concept. The theory of gravitation--which is the "belief" that the Earth and planets rotate around the sun as well as the understanding of the forces that make it possible--is also "just a theory."

It is only not a law because we cannot directly observe it, not because we don't have enough evidence.

We can't prove that it's there as a law because we can't capture it and put it under a microscope, but gravitation *can't* become a "law"--it's not that we're searching for more evidence before it can be made a law; it's that the nature of gravitation is such that "theory" is as specific as we can get.

Same with evolution. You can't watch it happen because the theory itself says that it takes too long for any one person to observe it. The best we can do in this case is have evidence to point to it, the same as we can't "prove" what was in someone's head when he murdered someone but we can look at the pieces and try to figure it out.

Let's take it further with this example of a murder suspect. We can assume that if he was a man with a jealous history who shot a man who was friendly with his wife, it may have been because he suspected him of having an affair with her. When you start to look at the murder with that in mind and then you think "if he was like that, then he probably was very possessive of his wife and was suspicious of all her interactions with male friends," which we can confirm when we ask her. When a theory's "if/then" suppositions result in the discovery of more facts that support the theory, the theory gets stronger and more substantiated, but it will never be "proof" if we don't have anyone who can read that man's mind. Thus, we are limited to coming up with a "theory," which consists of many, many pieces that all fit together and make a general picture of what happened.

The strength and dependability of the theory depends upon how many pieces we have and whether any *key* pieces are missing; if every time we talk to the suspect about any male friend of his wife, he responds with a guarded stance and a growl in his voice, we'd consider that more evidence, while if we found out that he knowingly allowed a male friend to stay overnight with his wife when he wasn't there and didn't suspect anything, that might cause us to look for a more likely possibility as a motive for this murder.

Now, if the defense can throw out the whole case because the plaintiff does not have a full video record of all events leading up to the murder, it's nothing but a mockery of a trial. Same with any scientific theory that can't be directly observed. Our decision to call it a "theory" is just a description of the fact that we acknowledge that no one does or CAN have a video record of it happening.

Theory is defined as: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

You crossed the line here; this is no longer honest. I am actually offended that you would stoop this low.

You know what I'm talking about because you know what you did, but because you chose to insult my intelligence by attempting to frame the DICTIONARY as being in support of your position only, I will just have to return the favor and explain to you what you have done.

You went to the dictionary and copy-pasted THE SECOND definition--ONLY--because it supported your statement. That is dishonest and sad and offensive. Did you think I'd look at that and think "Oh, well Rick has the dictionary on his side; I must be wrong that the theory of evolution is established"? Guess again.

You should not use a reference book this way, especially not if you are actually seeking truth rather than, ya know, "let's see if I can find something that supports what I already claim I know." Definition number 1 from the same place you copied your definition reads like this: "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." And it specifies Einstein's relativity theory as an example of this use of the word "theory."

I don't know if you just didn't comprehend this or if you skipped over it on purpose while looking for the one that would support what you were saying, but since you treated me like I don't know what a theory is, I guess I have no choice but to return the favor and say GUESS WHAT, the dictionary's first definition of the word "theory" *exactly supports* what I was saying "theory" means in the scientific sense.

You're fond of old dictionary.com, so it probably won't bother you much if I subject you to one very lovely paragraph in the same entry which you must've chosen not to read or consider (um, that's what happens when you cherry-pick to support a position rather than actually honestly trying to understand): Here is what the dictionary has to say about theories.

1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

If you're going to talk to me about this junk, do me the favor of not entering the arena assuming you're talking to an incompetent person, and also do me the favor of being intellectually honest with yourself AND with me. Jeez.

As far as evolution goes I would suggest you read about how the theory was started. If you think Darwin came up with the theory then you have a lot of reading to do.

Ironic here how you're attempting to frame me as the one uneducated in evolutionary theory.

I know that Darwin's research and resulting book Origin of Species was the blast-off point for the investigation of evolutionary theory, but that the theory itself was not fully supported or even proposed in Darwin's early research. But that is the difference between science and religion; we have respect for fathers of reason like Darwin and Einstein, but we don't quote them as gospel or assume that their theories are divine revelations. They are heroes but not prophets, as Steven Weinberg said in his speech at the Beyond Belief conference (which is excellent, I might add).

Weinberg also came up with the nice little gem that most college grad students studying cosmology have a better grasp on relativity than Einstein did. He got some things wrong. Darwin did as well. It was a beginning, a foothold. But unlike religion, science investigates all claims a theory makes and throws out what does not make sense while carrying on with those bits that do. Sometimes as technology advances, we develop ways to investigate things that we didn't used to have a way to investigate. Carbon dating, for instance. Genetics. Human Genome Project.

There has never been 1 instance of evolution; one "kind" evolving into another completely different "kind". No evidence what- so- ever! If you know of an instance please educate me.

I'll answer this in two ways.

One: You are demanding an example of a transitional form because you have a basic misunderstanding of how evolution works.

I heard one person who disbelieved in evolution say that if monkeys came from frogs, shouldn't we have a lot of fronkies? NO. That's not what evolutionary theory SAYS. If you look at the monkey and the frog, they are both modern animals. One did not come from the other, nor did reptiles just stay exactly how they started for hundreds of millions of years while the amphibians became mammals became higher apes and so on. We did not "come from" a creature like any modern ape. Evolutionary theory claims that we humans and the modern great apes have a common ANCESTOR, not that there is an in-between half-monkey/half-human that we can all see as a transitional form. We are all transitional forms.

It seems like you are saying "if evolution happens, then you should have THIS!" and since they can't produce "THIS!" then you say they have no evidence. Well, you are demanding evidence for a process that evolutionary theory does NOT CLAIM HAPPENS.

Nobody claims that all of a sudden animals become another kind of animal without a long transition. The apes did not all stand on their hind legs one day and say "Hey, I'm a new species now!" Each change has to be small enough for the genes to be similar enough on a molecular level in order to still mate with others that do not have the new mutations. Eventually, over LONG, LONG periods of time, mutations do result in what can be overall a profound change in a species, especially if that species is threatened by a predator or natural disaster (which causes the species to become "endangered" and have a smaller gene pool, and mutations are expressed in the phenotype of the offspring much more often in the cases of in-breeding, which will lead to the population either succeeding because of new traits or dying out). 99.9% of all animal life that has been on this planet is now extinct. Most of the populations did not get snuffed out by a single event. Most of them just stopped being born, because no animal was passing on that gene anymore (whatever gene produced the attribute that made the animal be classified as whatever species it used to be).

And since I said I'd answer this question two ways, my first way above is summarized thus: Evolutionary theory does not SAY there is one "kind" suddenly becoming another "kind," and therefore it does not prove the theory false or unsubstantiated if you claim there is no example of such. My second way is to name a species that has been found that is enough like a transitional form in the minds of people who think the way you appear to about evolution. That would be Australopithecus Afarensis. (Australopithecus Africanus is another one.)

There are also hundreds of examples in the fossil record of some of the distant ancestors of other creatures, and I doubt naming some of them would have any more effect on your acceptance of the theory than my naming those two above does (unless you have suddenly become more open-minded). But please be advised that if you go into any museum of natural history that has a decent fossil display, you WILL see wonderful examples of extinct ancestors of many animals but you will NOT see any fronkies.

You said this:

Per your statement on homosexual twins...you seem ignore the fact that scientist have proven that there is no seeable connection between the choice to become a homosexual, considering genetics or family environment. Today the most prevalent argument is being a homosexual is purely choice. You state facts from inconclusive studies. If you know of a study that proves no choice; again educate me. My reading in books, internet and lol Psychology 102 has lead to the inescapable conclusion…CHOICE.

I doubt that giving you an example that supports my side of the argument is going to change your mind, but we can always try. But first, I will state that every sexual *expression* is ultimately a choice. You do have to choose to be a practicing homosexual person. That statement should never be taken out of context, though, because you also have to choose to be a practicing heterosexual person. Who you have sex with is your choice.

Question is, what exactly ARE you saying is the case here? (You don't seem to be very good at framing your points, sorry to say.) Are you saying that by default EVERYONE is heterosexual, and that every homosexual person in the world who feels that they are naturally attracted to their own sex is actually just making a choice based on some kind of delusion?

Maybe before I go too far with this I might just ask YOU to state *plainly* what you believe the case is. Not "it's been proven that homosexuality is a choice." No, that's not specific. I want you to tell me what you think is going on with homosexual people, because the way you're phrasing it, you seem to be saying that the only way a person can be gay is if they choose to go have deviant sex with another gay person. Can you speculate on their feelings for me, please? Can a person be gay but never have sex with another person of their same sex? Can a person have homosexual thoughts all their life but not actually "be" gay because they never act on them? What is causing these thoughts they have? Are those thoughts "choice"? Is the fact that they are sexually turned on by their own sex--sometimes to their own embarrassment--a "choice" they made somehow? Explain to me where you think the "choice" comes in in a homosexual mind and then maybe we can talk about it.

As for me, my college roommate was gay, and when he "came out" to his father, the dad lectured his son as so: "I used to be just like you. But I resisted it and overcame it and married a good woman and had a child the way the Church expects me to. I overcame my perverted desires with God's help. You can too." His father went on to admit that he still has those desires but considers it his own cross to bear, his own temptation from God, his continual test, and he is proud of having resisted the desires that came unbidden to his mind and body. What do you make of this?

(And it's interesting that in an environment that was decidedly NOT friendly to homosexual people, my college roommate found that he had an attraction to other men, and that the admission of so to his father revealed that it appeared to run in the family. . . . )

You said this:

You state facts from inconclusive studies. If you know of a study that proves no choice; again educate me.

I did say above that our criteria needs to be made clearer if I am to "prove" anything to you by citing anecdotal evidence. I am not out to "prove no choice," because I believe it is unclear what you think I'm trying to prove. What I am stating, clearly, is that it is a fact that there is a genetic base for the predisposition toward homosexuality. That doesn't mean "no choice."

A person can still "fight against" it, as my roommate's father did, and a person still has to evaluate what becoming a reviled minority involves if one is to make the "choice" to act on one's homosexual feelings if they appear. So there may be some skewing going on as to whether a person is considered gay--I would say that if a person has a preference for their own sex, whether or not they act on it, they are essentially still gay.

It is hard to imagine "deciding" to feel. You don't have a choice as to what hormones get squirted into your bloodstream any more than you have a choice about when your secondary sex characteristics are going to begin to show themselves, or to what degree. There are tons of girls out there who would love to "choose" to have their estrogen levels shoot up so they can go up a cup size and be like their quicker-maturing friends, but their bodies do not comply with their wishes most times. The same sorts of things happen to people who find themselves interested sexually in members of their own sex.

But then we add the human factor. Humans' minds have a tremendous effect on their sexual perception, so they have the possibility of developing all kinds of preferences--anything from preferring women with a certain hair color or body type to preferring to make love with one's hat on or an obsession with a lover's feet. Humans also have the capability of associating objects (like lollipops) or normally non-sexual processes (like urination) with sexuality because of their higher brain functions, which results in guys who can't get aroused unless their lovers go number one on them while licking a sucker. That is a very extreme example of my next point: Mental perception in humans has a profound effect.

So there may be gay people out there who have no physical/biological predisposition for homosexuality but have a *mental* fascination with their own sex. It can happen in many ways. I'm just saying here that it's not true that the only way to be gay is to be hormonally "imbalanced." The mind develops preferences, which cause the body to respond. No matter what, it is still just as real to the person and still results in valid and satisfying sexual encounters.

And lastly, I don't know why you dismissed my suggestion that twin studies on homosexuality were from "inconclusive studies," considering you don't know what studies I was citing. Why would you make a statement like that without knowing what you're dismissing? (Again, logical reasoning and backing up your claims really don't seem to be your strong point.) But here are your examples:

In 1991, Bailey and Pillard did a study on children raised in the same environment by the same parents alongside a brother or sister of the same sex who was the same age. Obviously most of these pairs were twins (either identical or fraternal), but in some, it was a same-age adoptive set of "twins." The study chose pairs in which at least one of the pair was homosexual. In the sample group, in the males, the identical twins were BOTH gay 52% of the time. If they were fraternal twins, they were BOTH gay 22% of the time. And if they were ADOPTIVE brothers of the same age, only 11%. (That's about the same percentage as the general population.) On to the girls, which was a study done two years later: Of identical twins: 48%. Fraternal twins: 16%. Adoptive same-age sisters: 6%.

Similar studies with similar results go back to at least the 1950s. Citing them probably wouldn't prove anything further to you if you don't want to accept it as evidence. What IS worthy of noting here is that I *do* know that scientists have *not* isolated "the gay gene" or whatever, nor do I think there is necessarily one gene or string of genes that one either has or does not have and which "makes" a person gay. Homosexual attraction as well as homosexual behavior are tremendously complex and cannot be quantified in the same way as Mendel did with his pea plants, because it's not a single, easily observable phenotype.

Someone can answer a questionnaire in such a way that she appears completely heterosexual, and then a person can investigate her past and find that she had a very serious homosexual relationship at one point. Someone can be like my college roommate's dad and honestly report that he has never had a sexual relationship with a man, but he still has homosexual feelings. There are many different situations in which a person can be not practicing any homosexual behavior but still "be" gay, and there are other situations in which a person can engage in homosexual behavior (perhaps for the benefit of a person she companionately loves who finds HER attractive sexually, or even for something like filming an adult movie) and not actually be gay.

I consider myself reasonably talented at singing. My grandfather was a career singer at his place of worship. My grandmother was an actress and singer who has been in five Broadway casts. My father (their son) plays the piano. I sing very well (though I haven't done much with it but make karaoke recordings). Do I think there's a genetic base for this? Absolutely.

I think I was born with a predisposition for musicianship. I think I was born with the physical makings of a nice voice. I had to choose to actually learn music and train my voice through practice, so I did have to act on it, but I think I had a "calling," and I think being in an environment that encouraged my singing probably contributed.

I have two younger sisters. Neither of them sings. But guess what? Neither of them is tone-deaf.

Obviously if a scientist were to analyze our genes and find a "singing gene" inside us, it could not be concluded that each of us would therefore be "called" to singing, but it *could* be concluded that if for some reason we had an internal or external push toward music, we'd be more likely to pick it up easily and be good at it--not to mention that we might have a predisposition for receiving that push from any direction.

Same with being gay.

I don't believe for a second that every gay person out there invented their sexual feelings, while every heterosexual person's sexual feelings are genuine.

You said this:

I really don't want to go on and on about the homosexual issue, I gave you my opinion and you gave me yours. I respect you and hope not to have offended you in any way. I love all men homosexual and straight, even if I disagree with how they behave in this world. If you want to retort to my comments above feel free.

The thing that *does* offend me about this e-mail is that it shows such blatant evidence that you chose your conclusion before you considered the evidence that leads to it, and that is intellectual dishonesty. That bit with the dictionary was really soooo very very not right. I was offended by that, but it's important to note that I am not offended that you don't agree with me; I am offended that you tried to pull the wool over my eyes by misrepresenting a supportive statement from the dictionary as if it was evidence that the scientific community's definition of a theory wouldn't be valid. That is both dishonest and insulting, as you both tried to do it and thought I would fall for it, as if I would look no further than your quote when I too have access to the dictionary (and, furthermore, already knew what a theory was and that "theory" has a legitimate scientific definition that is NOT the same as "guesswork").

You're also very prone to using the very silly "straw man argument technique," where you set up some target that DOESN'T REPRESENT THE OPPOSITION'S POINT and then proceed to knock it down ever-so-convincingly. It reminds me of watching Ray Comfort peel a frickin' banana on YouTube.

In order to try to have a discussion about something, you have to actually consider the other person's point of view, and you don't seem to have done that because you're making arguments to disprove or discredit stuff I never even asserted. In the (multiple) places where I thought *your* stance was unclear, I asked for clarification. I guess we'll see if you give it to me.

I also suggest you give up on this "there isn't any evidence" technique, because *I can check* just like I can look up "theory" in the dictionary and see how you tried to skew the evidence. I have a scientific mind and I prefer to go to the source rather than just "fight" whatever's put in front of me. If you expect to get anything out of this discussion, you need to do your homework on the subject. I don't know how well you're doing/did in Psychology 102, but keep in mind that just because you don't find evidence for something doesn't mean it isn't there (as Carl Sagan so rightly said, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"), so you might want to look farther than your textbook.

Not to mention that your claim to have done some searching on the Internet and having taken a couple of psych courses does nothing to add validity to any of your arguments. There are people with Ph.D.'s out there who nevertheless don't impress me when they try to stand on their own two feet in an argument *in their field* believe it or not--credentials mean nothing unless you can repeatedly show that you are worthy of them.

I myself once encountered a man with a Ph.D. in ENGLISH from HARVARD who edited a book before I got a crack at the second edition--he had left 402 errors in the book, and I found them. I could edit circles around this guy and I've never taken a college-level English class. (And in case you wonder why, it's not because I didn't go to college. It's because I took AP classes in high school and got the highest score possible on the AP English test, which caused the university to exempt me from taking the English requirements. In fact, I minored in psychology, but that's another story.)

So, in short, rather than jumping up and down yelling "I studied psychology and read this other stuff so I know what I'm talking about on the gayness issue!" you probably ought to just let your arguments speak for themselves. The way they are now, they can't stand up. If you write back, do me a favor and don't cherry-pick your evidence to support what you want it to say, because I too can find verses in the Bible that encourage believers to smoke pot. It has to make sense IN CONTEXT or it doesn't work, and as someone who can sniff fudged evidence out from a mile away, I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult me by trying that again.

And now that I've had my rant for the day, I'm going to get on with my life now. ~*ivY